Longtime poverty writer and television producer, Becky Johnson of Santa Cruz, Ca. shares her essays, videos, and favorite articles on the issues of the day from the faux Swine Flu pandemics, to saving lives and billions with breast thermography. From smoking bans to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, try to keep up with Becky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BeckyJohnson222

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Judge Burdick dismisses charges against four of the Santa Cruz Eleven

Steve Pleich passes Sgt. Harms and Officer Hedley as he arrives for Judge Burdick's preliminary hearing for four of the Santa Cruz Eleven. Photo by Becky Johnson

Seven defendants, also similarly charged with 75 River Street Occupation still face felony and misdemeanor charges

After listening to Officer William Winston of the SCPD and Det. David Gunter's testimony, Burdick challenged Assistant DA Rebekah Young by saying "Ms. Young, you agree that none of these four defendants committed any act of vandalism."

Young offered that if there were any questions, she had brought Sgt. Harms and Officer Hedley to court "just in case." Neither could testify, of course, since neither officer was on the prosecution's witness list. Burdick ignored her and went on, "I have no evidence in this record that any of these defendants committed any act of vandalism. You are relying on an "aiding" and "abetting" theory?"

"That's correct."

"Do you have anything even by inference that anyone intended for anyone else to trespass?"

"It's more helpful, of course," Young offered," if you have defendants who actually committed the crimes while simultaneously witnessing 50, 80 others who also entered the building,"

"I'm concerned the evidence merely shows that the entire group was marching, as the flier explained 'to a foreclosed property' and intended to protest in front of the building. Do you have any evidence that suggests anyone intended to do anything other than mill about and not enter?"

Burdick continued. "My sense of what the evidence established, was that almost immediately someone entered the building. The officers testified there were "no signs of forced entry." Ms. Young, you need to establish that these four defendants intended to enter the building, occupy for a period of time, and stay after being ordered to leave. There isn't anything in the evidence to infer that they did.

All you've shown is that as part of the protest, when like others, they saw the doors were open, they went in and out to see what was happening."

SCPD police evidence photo of SENTINEL reporter, JessicaPasko photographed parking on the property and walking to get her story on December 1st at 75 River Street. Pasko was not charged.

"Your Honor, there's no fun in taking over a building you're allowed to be in. That was the point. To break the law."

"And, you've presented no evidence that any of them were in the building after November 30th."

Young: "You have to look at the group as a whole. They were meeting in concert with other protesters. Protesters, some of who were outside the building with their arms clasped."

SCPD evidence photo of protesters, some with arms locked, standing together outside 75 River Street on November 30th. Photo is time stamped at 4:24PM, more than 3 hours before police testimony that protesters were warned they were trespassing and must leave or be arrested.

"None of the four here."

Young: "Some were with bandanas covering their faces or hiding their identity. They knew they were trespassing."

Burdick: Ms. Young, you have presented no evidence that they wouldn't leave quietly if asked.
You paint with too broad a brush. The evidence is insufficient that anyone intended to commit trespass by design or agreement with other parties. I move to discharge all four defendants. Someone did commit a crime in that building. Crimes were committed by some individuals, and we don't condone this behavior, but the evidence does not show it was done by these individuals."

Young: I will move to refile charges against Franklin Alcantara and Cameron Laurendau. We have video as explained by Det. Gunter, of Mr. Laurendau inside the building."

Burdick: And it was in the daytime. Testimony was that the warning given by Sgt. Harms was after dark. And Gunter's testimony is not credible. Gunter testified on March 13th that he was not present at 75 River Street on December 2nd. On Monday, April 23rd, he testified he was present at the building on December 2nd. His testimony is discredited.

But minutes later, outside the courtroom, defendants, family members, and supporters celebrated with smiles all around. While seven are still charged with felony conspiracy to trespass and vandalism as well as misdemeanor charges, the news for the remaining defendants is very good. Unless the police and DA come up with some new evidence that they haven't uncovered in nearly five months after the occupation of the vacant bank building, chances are poor that Young can get a conviction.

Those wishing to sign the petition to Free the Santa Cruz Eleven are invited to do so at santacruzeleven.org

COMMENTARY BY ROBERT NORSE

Becky: I'm amazed and delighted with this story. I don't know how you
could write down so many details so fast. I tried and now have to
decipher my own handwriting. Glad you took the time and trouble.

HOLD THE HOOPLAH

I'm less celebratory than many about these dismissals (though they're
definitely a good sign). A local attorney advises me that because
Burdick declined to dismiss the charges "with prejudice" they can be
refiled. This is what Young said she'd do in the cases of Angel and
Cameron. She also suggested she'd be reviewing the cases of Ed and
Grant.

Further, Burdick denied a motion by Angel's lawyer,
Rubin, to sanction D.A. Young for prosecutorial misconduct. Young
apparently presented briefings to the judge that she didn't supply to
the defense. She also presented Gunter's contradictory testimony that
seemed to indicate he was either mistaken or lying about being present
on December 2nd.

It wasn't clear to me whether these two
actions or some other eager blunder by Young was the focus of Rubin's
motion, but Burdick summarily denied it. Had Burdick actually granted or
even held a hearing about Rubin's motion to hold Young accountable it,
it might have actually had a future deterrent effect on the
color-by-numbers “being-in-the-building-is-a-conspiracy” prosecutor.

Instead it appeared Burdick was doing all he count to counsel and coach
Young in her next appearance (read: refiling of charges). His advice
may give her what she needs to provide to give a patina of plausibility
to this costly charade and mechanically refile charges with new police
witnesses.

ONE POSITIVE NOTE

On the upside,
Young's office--in my case--after four failures to provide video tapes
requested, advised me yesterday that she's finally turning over video,
available a week before to other defendants.

I hope to post
some of it on-line to show the extent of local interest in this attempt
to reclaim space. (Those worried they might be fingered as
“co-conspirators” should know that the D.A. already has all this video,
so it's nothing new to them.)

We're still waiting for her to
provide supplementary police reports and other evidence—still ignored in
our requests.Indeed on March 13th when Young failed to give a date for
handing over all the evidence in my case, Burdick set the date for a
Motion to Compel her to give over this stuff May 18 8:15 AM in Dept. 6.
No other attorney to my knowledge has filed such a motion--which makes
me wonder how they're spending their time.

Yet court, D.A., police, defense, and community time and money is going
to continue to be showered on this political attack on Occupy Santa
Cruz and local activists.They may put even more energy into this phony
prosecution because part of their dirty underwear has been exposed
here..

PAST TIME TO FIGHT BACK

Which means we
need to get more organizations on board demanding these charges be
dropped. We need more protests organized at the courthouse. We need an
attorney to ready a civil lawsuit when and if these charges are dropped.
(Perhaps Grant or Ed could start even now, if their charges aren't
refiled.).

Every day that a defendant is under the toxic
pressure of this prosecution. Every hour she or he loses from work.
Every instance of discrimination in employment or housing that results
from this smear job--should be compensated for. And the unrecoverable
cost is even greater: How many have been deterred from active protest by
this chilling witchhunt? How many are frightened to speak their mind or
raising his voice against the greater criminals--the Wells Fargo
banksters, the Drug War prison pushers, the Obama/Romney warmongers, the
local authorities who routine crush homeless lives?

One
"liberal" City Council candidate who recently announced his campaign
nervously declined to wear a "Empty Buildings are THE crime. Free the
Santa Cruz Eleven!" sticker because it was too "controversial". Another
City Council member clearly in the building has maintained a silence on
this issue instead of denouncing the proceedings. And we haven't heard a
peep from The Sentinel and Patch, both of whom had “trespassers” in the
building whose identities are known to the police.

The
effects of this buckshot attack on Occupy Santa Cruz has had cascading
effects that undermine all serious political dissent. For the health of
each of us and of our community, it's time to fight back.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment on any post. Comments that are slanderous, libelous, or are in other ways abusive may be removed by the moderator. Comments remaining posted do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the owner of this blog. Thank-you for reading.

About Me

Longtime Santa Cruz homeless advocate, Becky Johnson has written for Street Spirit, produced "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides: Civil Rights for the Poor" and has lobbied for homeless civil rights with HUFF, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, and produced her own television show "Club Cruz" which covered local and poverty issues. Currently Ms. Johnson is one of the founders of Peace Camp 2010 located on the courthouse steps until the City of Santa Cruz repeals the Sleeping Ban.